Foreknowledge in 1 Peter 1:2

[Me4Him]

What would be the problem with God making his plans within the frame work of the events he "Foreknew" would occur, without having to predestine those events??

Pharaoh not "predestine" to refuse Moses, but simply used because Moses or no Moses, Pharaoh would have never submitted to God.

Jews teach that there is no "bad prophecy" which can't be "turned around" to be good,

God's forewarnings to Israel have been ignored, as a result, bad things happen to them, which could have been averted had they obeyed.

Forewarning are useless if it's been "predestine". neither can disobedience be attributed to man.

 

[swaimj]

What would be the problem with God making his plans within the frame work of the events he "Foreknew" would occur, without having to predestine those events??

The problem, as I understand it, is that if God merely foreknows all events, then his is not necessarily in control of those events. I don't think you can separate God's knowing from His willing and still have a God who is sovereign.

 

[RunAway]

Yes, he did. Not sure I understand your point here. It was not possible for Jesus to avoid the cross (that is what I take the cup to refer to). Because the cross was a part of God's determinate counsel and because the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, Jesus' death had to take place within the bounds of time just as God planned it.

Even Judas had to betray Christ as God planned that he would. And yet, Judas freely chose to betray Jesus. If anyone should have known better and could have chosen differently, it was Judas.

I take the cup to mean if there is any other way to accomplish the work of salvation other than the Cross...You seem to be saying Jesus really didn't want to go through with it but had to....I may be wrong and apologize if so.....

 

[swaimj]

You seem to be saying Jesus really didn't want to go through with it but had to....

In His humanity, Jesus did not want to go to the cross, but in His divinity He was at one with the Father and did the Father's will.

 

[Jim1999]

Never lose sight of the fact that Jesus the Christ was perfect man and perfect God in Himself. His role on earth including that of Jesus the man. His destiny was the cross. This is the perfect demonstration of the absolute sovereignty of God. Jesus had no alternative but to accept the will of the Father; the cross, and in this act, He was willing.

Jonah, the man, was not willing to obey God, but God had a plan, hence, Jonah was made willing to obey by means..thrown overboard; swallowed by a great fish prepared by God; spit out on shore; Jonah fulfils God's command.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Tom Butler]

I think we'll get off the track as long as we insist that God foreknows "what" instead of "whom."

The word is not used in the Old Testament, but is closely akin to "know," which in both the Old and New Testaments is not ever related to events It is always related to whom he knew. Jeremiah said God knew him before he was ever born. Jesus is portrayed at the judgment as saying to the lost, "I never knew you."

To know often implies more than just awareness of existence. It suggests the closest of relationships; when, for instance it refers to a man "knowing" his wife. It implies love and favor.

To foreknow, then suggests a personal acquaintance, a relationship, a favor, a love that existed in God before I was ever born.

That's why Romans 8:29 makes so much sense. Those whom he foreknew are the ones he predestinated, called and justified.

So when we read of God's foreknowing, we do not speak of what God foresees, but whom God foreknows with regard to his relationship with them.

The basis of his foreknowledge of "whom" is his election. Not the other way around. If election is based on foreseen faith, then the elect elect themselves.

 

[Marcia]

Yes. When I speak of God using his knowledge of my heart, my motivations, by influences, and my circumstances to bring about an action in me, I am describing secondary causes.

Marcia, it has been a while since I read Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free but I think I am tracking pretty closely with what he argues in these matters. There. Bringing him up and that book should open a big can of worms!

Yes, you are right! I've read the book and just posted something on it in the other forum where I saw you posted something as well.

I think there is a tension in the Bible between God's planning and control and man's will, however one defines that. I think it is impossible to resolve or dissect this tension.

 

[zrs6v4]

Never lose sight of the fact that Jesus the Christ was perfect man and perfect God in Himself. His role on earth including that of Jesus the man. His destiny was the cross. This is the perfect demonstration of the absolute sovereignty of God. Jesus had no alternative but to accept the will of the Father; the cross, and in this act, He was willing.

Jonah, the man, was not willing to obey God, but God had a plan, hence, Jonah was made willing to obey by means..thrown overboard; swallowed by a great fish prepared by God; spit out on shore; Jonah fulfils God's command.

Cheers,

Jim

AMEN to that.....

I also would like to note a couple of passages to consider...

Psalm 135:6 "Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps."

Ezekiel 18:32 "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live."

Deut. 28:63 "And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you."

Proverbs 1:24-26/Ezekiel 5:13/Isaiah 31-32/Revelation 18:20

"the passages seem contradictory to our eye, but the key never to forget is that God is infinetly complex emotionally. We arent to choose one or the other to fit us, but to get deeper in the mind of God." -John Piper. Whatever His sovereign plan is, it is what He chooses, and He takes delight in it. I also would like to add that the sovereignty of God is what brings comfort to me, even if it is in a crisis. It would freak me out to think God didnt have sovereign control even over what seems to be destructive and catastrophic such as storms and floods that take lives. That should lead us to rejoice like Job

 

[Me4Him]

The problem, as I understand it, is that if God merely foreknows all events, then his is not necessarily in control of those events. I don't think you can separate God's knowing from His willing and still have a God who is sovereign.

Maybe you're applying God's "sovereignty" in the wrong way, God's not willing for any to perish, but they do,

You can't say their perishing is God's sovereign will without contradicting the scriptures.

If "Faith/Repentance" need to be given to man by God, before he will have faith/repent, then why were they "excluded" from the plan to save the whole world, according to the "will of God that none perish"??

Sovereign will can't exit where the will of God is violated.

 

[Jim1999]

scripture interprets scripture and not in isolation.

Humanly speaking, if I create something, I have total control over it. If it doesn't tick, I destroy it.

If God is not absolutely sovereign, He isn't God at all. Remember, we are the creation and not he Creator.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[pinoybaptist]

.........God's not willing for any to perish, but they do,

Oh, boy. There's that scripture again.

 

[Me4Him]

scripture interprets scripture and not in isolation.

Humanly speaking, if I create something, I have total control over it. If it doesn't tick, I destroy it.

If God is not absolutely sovereign, He isn't God at all. Remember, we are the creation and not he Creator.

Cheers,

Jim

Ge 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Ge 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

God gave man dominion over the earth and he didn't take it back when man sinned, so man now as gods, knowing good/evil, can call good, evil, and evil good.

But God will hold man accountable for his actions on Judgment day.

Mt 21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

 

[Jim1999]

Everyone thinks we never read the Bible.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[RunAway]

Everyone thinks we never read the Bible.

Cheers,

Jim

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Allan]

I think we'll get off the track as long as we insist that God foreknows "what" instead of "whom."

Interesting, however there are some of those whom He foreknew that He cast-away or cast-aside. (Rom 11:1,2) Now what do we do

The word is not used in the Old Testament, but is closely akin to "know," which in both the Old and New Testaments is not ever related to events It is always related to whom he knew. Jeremiah said God knew him before he was ever born. Jesus is portrayed at the judgment as saying to the lost, "I never knew you."

To know often implies more than just awareness of existence. It suggests the closest of relationships; when, for instance it refers to a man "knowing" his wife. It implies love and favor.

Sorry brother but this is just not true. Take any lexicon or concordenance and try to find your rendition of the Greek or Hebrew word for 'know' or "foreknow' or "foreknown". We have many instances in scripture of single acts of adultry or fornication whereby the scriptures tell us that they 'knew' such and such, and you would have us to understand the usage of that word means favor or love?

The fact is that the Greek itself has 3 different words for love in relation to personal relationships and 'know' is not one of them. In fact the only definition lexicons and concordenances gives us is that the scripture is speaking of a sexual act (with regard to intimacy or relationship). We sometimes add to what the meaning is and to often people are putting their theological defintions upon words to supercede the actaul meaning of the word.

To foreknow, then suggests a personal acquaintance, a relationship, a favor, a love that existed in God before I was ever born.

Again, no it doesn't. The Greek word isn't forelove, or forefavor, it is and is foreknow. It is the same term used to describe the Jews whom God cast away in Rom 11:1,2

That's why Romans 8:29 makes so much sense. Those whom he foreknew are the ones he predestinated, called and justified.

Your rendering (and that of many Reformers) makes sense if your looking for something prop up a doctrinal view but it does not beyond that - IMO.
Thus it can and still does make so much sense if we take it for what it means and not add our own choice theological definitions to over ride it's meaning.

So when we read of God's foreknowing, we do not speak of what God foresees, but whom God foreknows with regard to his relationship with them.

Actaully we speak of both. God decrees based upon His perfect knowledge or else you would have God decreeing and THEN having knowledge. The term foreknow does not speak of favor or love only knowledge but the rest of the passage in Romans 8 my brother, gives us understanding that His love worked in tandom with His knowledge that His decree would be perfect, of grace and just. Thus to 'foreknow' does not have the implied meaning you are rendering but the passage itself implies it with great passion.

The basis of his foreknowledge of "whom" is his election. Not the other way around. If election is based on foreseen faith, then the elect elect themselves.

Again, no. No one elects themselves and to say such is misrepresentation because elect simply means chosen but not 'how' they are chosen.
If God decrees to save by grace through faith in His Son whom He will send, then at that same moment He will/would know all of faith in Christ. These are people chosen by God not due to forseen faith but due to His decree to save by faith.
IOW- If God would have chosen to save by works then they to would be considered elect, not because of their works but because of His choosing to save this type of people. - -- at least that is one way to explain it.

However you are still stuck with trying to answer the Rom 11 issue with regard to national Israel because if what you say is true then what do we do with Israel whom He foreknew and cast away. Or what of the other passage in Rom 11 where they (even cast away) are beloved of the Father:

Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes.

How can we be cast aways and yet beloved by the Father when speaking of election?

 

[Allan]

Everyone thinks we never read the Bible.

Cheers,

Jim

I agree, that is all I ever hear from my Calvinistic brothers.

I'll give you this Jim. You have read and do read your bible :thumbs:

We may not agree with what you see the passage saying sometimes or vise-versa but that is a far cry from not reading

 

[Tom Butler]

Interesting, however there are some of those whom He foreknew that He cast-away or cast-aside. (Rom 11:1,2) Now what do we do?

I don't see that in the passage you cite. V. 2 "God HATH NOT cast away his people whom he foreknew..."

God decrees based upon His perfect knowledge or else you would have God decreeing and THEN having knowledge. The term foreknow does not speak of favor or love only knowledge but the rest of the passage in Romans 8 my brother, gives us understanding that His love worked in tandem with His knowledge that His decree would be perfect, of grace and just. Thus to 'foreknow' does not have the implied meaning you are rendering but the passage itself implies it with great passion.

I, of course, see it the other way. God bases his foreknowledge on his decrees. I do agree that the two work in tandem, rather than in a chronological order. If God foreknows something he didn't foreknow before, then he has changed. As a friend of mine said once "did it ever occur to you that nothing ever occurs to God?"

No one elects themselves and to say such is misrepresentation because elect simply means chosen but not 'how' they are chosen.
If God decrees to save by grace through faith in His Son whom He will send, then at that same moment He will/would know all of faith in Christ. These are people chosen by God not due to foreseen faith but due to His decree to save by faith.
IOW- If God would have chosen to save by works then they to would be considered elect, not because of their works but because of His choosing to save this type of people. - -- at least that is one way to explain it.

Yes, you are right, that God has decreed to save by grace through faith. But I can't see how one who holds that God elects based on foreseen faith can conclude that God's election is not dependent on the individual. Which is another way of saying the individual, by his faith, elects himself. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that one.

However you are still stuck with trying to answer the Rom 11 issue with regard to national Israel because if what you say is true then what do we do with Israel whom He foreknew and cast away. Or what of the other passage in Rom 11 where they (even cast away) are beloved of the Father:

How can we be cast aways and yet beloved by the Father when speaking of election?

I suppose I would have a problem explaining that passage if it actually said that

 

[Allan]

I don't see that in the passage you cite. V. 2 "God HATH NOT cast away his people whom he foreknew..."

I was hopeing you would catch that in my post. There was a reason for it though (and not to 'intentionally' to misquote scripture to mispresent it for some evil purpose).

I agree with your correction but what did God do with Israel which He foreknew that would make Paul have to address the issue by making such a direct and specific statement concerning them?

We know that God did not cast them away because the scripture specifically says He did not. God did however set them aside as His people and made them enemies for the gospels sake yet they are still loved for the Fathers sake.

Is it forelove to make them an enemy? Is it forefavor to do such?

I, of course, see it the other way. God bases his foreknowledge on his decrees.

Then you have God decreeing without knowledge till afterward. A decree is something that is determined to be and that means there is knowledge prior to the setting forth of any decree. I intentionally did not address what His knowledge entails nor did I state what specifically God knew. To assume such is to presume one has a mind that understands God's. (not saying you do - just making a statement).

Rather than says "God bases His foreknowledge on His decrees" let us say that God's decree's are established in conjuction with His knowledge. That leaves the 'how' and 'what' God specifically knows and well as the 'when' (chronologically) in God's court. To presume any more without specific scriptural support is to presume much to much.

I do agree that the two work in tandem, rather than in a chronological order. If God foreknows something he didn't foreknow before, then he has changed.

I'm not so sure I agree with all the implications this statement makes. While I DO agree that nothing occurs to God 'after' He has determined what shall be. It also seems to presume that God can not think up new things. IOW - God can not think something up (like making angels or man) for it has to have always been in His mind as long as He has existed.

But I can't see how one who holds that God elects based on foreseen faith can conclude that God's election is not dependent on the individual.

I never stated He elects based on forseen faith. I said the decree of God to save through faith is that which establishes all those of faith as His chosen ones.


JUST CURIOUS - Did you ever think of this:
IF God knows all things, as even you espouse, why the need to decree anything since all that God knows will come about. The truth is there is no need because His knowledge of what will come to pass.

This is what I believe is the reason for His decrees:
His decrees set the boundries not only to but of what will happen and why. If His decrees were not in place and He just let fly creation, anything can happen with any potential varity of endings. Gods decrees are the established boundries which bring time and space into divine order that all things which are known and determined by God are fulled in accordance with His plan.

Which is another way of saying the individual, by his faith, elects himself.

Again, this is a complete misunderstanding. No one can make himself chosen. The very words elect or chosen implies the descion is made by another. But no one is chosen either without a reason otherwise you have God electing from a galactic lotto. If God determines to save those of faith who are you or I to say otherwise. The essense of the term 'elect' has two basic understandings which is that there is 1) a criteria that needs be met in order to elected, or 2) choosing arbitrarily.

 

[Rippon]

We sometimes add to what the meaning is and to often people are putting their theological defintions upon words to supercede the actaul meaning of the word.

Yeah, you do.

Your rendering (and that of many Reformers) makes sense if your looking for something prop up a doctrinal view but it does not beyond that - IMO.
Thus it can and still does make so much sense if we take it for what it means and not add our own choice theological definitions to over ride it's meaning.

Again,that's your problem,not the Reformed view.

If God decrees to save by grace through faith in His Son whom He will send, then at that same moment He will/would know all of faith in Christ.

The only reason anyone has faith is because God grants/gives it.People do not generate their own saving faith.The Lord knows His own because He has chosen them long before the earth was formed.

 

[Rippon]

It also seems to presume that God can not think up new things. IOW - God can not think something up (like making angels or man) for it has to have always been in His mind as long as He has existed.

God does not think up new things.To insist that He does is not orthodox.Nothing occurs to God!

But no one is chosen either without a reason otherwise you have God electing from a galactic lotto.

The reason God has chosen certain ones is because it pleased Him to do so.If you in all of your finiteness try to answer in another way then you are biblically wrong.

If God determines to save those of faith who are you or I to say otherwise.

Since God only gives faith to those He specifically intends to save -- who are you nto suggest otherwise?!